Describe the kinds of evidence that a plaintiff can present in order to establish a negligent act. What defenses can a defendant present in order to refute a plaintiff’s evidence?How do statutes of limitations protect professional nurse-defendants? Do they also protect the injured parties?What can staff nurses do to protect patients from quasi-intentional torts? Does this differ from the nurse manager’s role in preventing quasi-intentional torts?Read the case study presented at the end of Chapter 5 (Guido, p. 67).Does the failure to document an admission nursing assessment equate with the fact that this nurse did no admission nursing assessment?What might the patient’s attorney further allege in his supplemental report?How would one decide the standard of care for this patient?How would you decide the outcome of this case?Read the case study presented at the end of Chapter 6 (Guido, p. 96)Was there negligence in this case and who should be liable for the negligence?What type of damages should be assessed and how would you begin to determine the amount to assess?Given that there were multiple individuals involved in this case as well as the institution that employed these individuals, how would you determine the percentage of liability for the multiple defendants, assuming that more than one defendant should be assessed with damages?How would you decide this case?Read the case study presented at the end of Chapter 7(Guido, p. 115)Were there damages that should be paid to this patient for negligence?Who should be the individuals responsible for these damages? For example, is the surgeon the individual most liable for the damages owed to the patient?Should the Bovie manufacturer also have been included in the lawsuit?Are there any defenses that the defendants could cite that would mitigate their liability to this patient?How should the court decide the damage awards in this instance?
and strong presumption for diversion in appropriate cases. The ambiguity in these policies can result in a significant level of subjectivity among intake officers, including a reluctance to divert cases in the absence of clear guidelines. Additionally, the absence of clear policies or guidelines may mean that some intake officers are engaging in practices that are narrowing diversion opportunities. For example, although DJS rescinded a policy that required youth to admit to an offense in order to be eligible for diversion some time ago, several stakeholders expressed concern that DJS intake officers still impose this requirement on young people that they are considering for diversion. Second, several stakeholders identified the requirement for victim consent for an informal adjustment as a barrier to diversion at the point of intake. While it is certainly important to respect a victim’s right to be heard regarding a potential diversion decision, stakeholders expressed concern that some intake officers are not as invested in creating diversion opportunities for young people and are not skilled at conveying the documented benefits of diversion for the youth, the victim, and the broader community from a public safety perspective. DJS has acknowledged these barriers and is currently working to remedy them in several ways. For example, DJS is in the process of developing a new clear, objective diversion policy and a quality assurance process for diversion decisions. DJS is also exploring better training for intake staff and the addition of a new family and peer support specialist for Baltimore City. Among other duties, this staff person would be responsible for outreach to victims in support of diversion efforts.>GET ANSWER Let’s block ads! (Why?)